Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

NASA Outlines "Flagship" Technology Demonstrations

Posted by Soulskill on from the i-don't-see-giant-laser-beam-on-there dept.

FleaPlus writes "As part of its new plans, NASA has outlined the initial series of large-scale 'flagship' technology demonstration (FTD) missions for developing and testing technologies needed for sustainable beyond-Earth exploration, complementing the smaller-scale ETDD missions outlined previously. The first four FTD missions (costing $400M-$1B each, about the cost of the recent Ares I-X suborbital rocket launch) are scheduled to launch between 2014 and 2016, demonstrating advanced in-space propulsion (next-generation ion propulsion and solar arrays), in-space propellant transfer and storage, a lightweight/inflatable mission module at the ISS (which will also test closed-loop life support), and an inflatable aeroshell for aerocapture at Mars. A multi-purpose robotic rendezvous and docking vehicle will also be developed to support these missions."

23 of 27 comments (clear)

  1. Finally some real technology development by Larson2042 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Instead of blowing money on re-inventing the wheel, except much more expensively... *cough* Ares-1

    1. Re:Finally some real technology development by Brett+Buck · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And the first one that goes in the drink, blows up, or otherwise fails, people will jump all over them for wasting millions of dollars on some pie-in-the-sky experiment instead of using proven approaches.

    2. Re:Finally some real technology development by Larson2042 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Proven approaches to what? Orbital fuel depots and refueling, inflatable aero shells, tens of kW electric propulsion for manned missions, and inflatable habitats don't have proven approaches yet. That's the whole point of these kinds of programs. The only way NASA will be able to stay with "proven approaches" is to remain in LEO and build carbon-copy ISSs. Even then, I remain far from convinced that what NASA does today should be considered a "proven approach" to manned spaceflight. While they've done some amazing things, human spaceflight still remains rare and hideously expensive. I would prefer that not be the approach to such matters going into the future.

    3. Re:Finally some real technology development by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Instead of blowing money on re-inventing the wheel, except much more expensively...

      Lighweight, inflatable mission module...

      It seems to me I've heard something similar...Bungalow? Bigelow? Something like that...they've already had subscale testbeds in orbit for a couple or four years...

      Oh, and Bigelow's design is based on something done for NASA back in the '90's, I think.

      In other words, this is hardly ground-breaking new technology, but a rehashing of tech NASA was ordered to drop back when it turned out to cost too much for development.

      Even worse, NASA is actually forbidden by law to do any development work on it still. Though it's okay if they buy one from Bigelow....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    4. Re:Finally some real technology development by shadowbearer · · Score: 1

        When it comes to space flight, the public is awfully ignorant. Perhaps we should stop worrying about public opinion so damned much and start doing real work. The astronauts and other people in the programs who put their lives on the line for it understand what the risks are and what they are doing. This is too important to be left to public opinion.

        The irony here is that private space companies are more likely to succeed because they don't have to answer to the public as much as government funded programs do. Yet.

        (Most of the public has no idea what the term "risk assessment" even means, especially involving spaceflight, let alone how to evaluate risk)

      SB

       

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    5. Re:Finally some real technology development by FatLittleMonkey · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So NASA are helping a young technology company to test a hab design which, if it works, will save NASA money in the long term and increase in-space capability.

      And this is a bad thing, because?

      --
      Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
    6. Re:Finally some real technology development by Tekfactory · · Score: 4, Informative

      I totally agree with new approaches and new development. But I want to mention two things you might not be aware of.

      Bigelow Aerospace has flown 2 inflatable Habitats since 2006. The foam they are made of was originally developed for the ISS, and tech transferred to a private company to develop it further.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigelow_Aerospace
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TransHab
      Heck their Sundancer manned habitat might BE the tech demonstrator for inflatable habitats.

      The VASIMR 200kw electric propulsion system tested on the ISS, can only run for 10 minutes on batteries that have to trickle charge because the ISS only has 110kw of solar power available.

      So while these things aren't man rated yet, I can see where the tech demonstrators for these would be quick to put together with little 'new' development time.

    7. Re:Finally some real technology development by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      So NASA are helping a young technology company to test a hab design which, if it works, will save NASA money in the long term and increase in-space capability.

      And this is a bad thing, because?

      Two things: the theme of NASA's announcement was that they were investing in new breakthrough technologies. Fifteen year old tech that NASA was working on in the '90's is hardly "new", much less "breakthrough".

      And Bigelow expects to have a full-scale unit in orbit next year or the year after. NASA isn't planning on getting into the game with this exciting new technology till it's been operational for a couple years...

      What NASA should be looking at are things that are, well, new. Unproven. Requiring further development. Tried and true not so much. Investing in development of something that's already completed its development doesn't match up with that.

      In general, NASA's announcement of its new direction seems to be "we're dredging up a bunch of things that we think will be pretty easy (in one case, because it's already operational) so it looks like we're accomplishing something...."

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    8. Re:Finally some real technology development by sznupi · · Score: 2, Informative

      Adding to what Tekfactory said, ISS regularly refuels in orbit. Heck, the docking interface of Progress has inbuilt means to transfer fuel.

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    9. Re:Finally some real technology development by FleaPlus · · Score: 1

      What NASA should be looking at are things that are, well, new. Unproven. Requiring further development. Tried and true not so much. Investing in development of something that's already completed its development doesn't match up with that.

      In general, NASA's announcement of its new direction seems to be "we're dredging up a bunch of things that we think will be pretty easy (in one case, because it's already operational) so it looks like we're accomplishing something...."

      See my other comment. This announcement is only for testing relatively mature technologies in space, while other programs (e.g. NIAC, SBIR) are for more novel technologies:

      http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1660882&cid=32300668

  2. Seems kind of quick? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    They couldn't have really developed all of this since the announcement of the cancellation of the Constellation program.

    Seems more likely they just grabbed a bunch of already developed tech and slammed it together.

    On the plus side, the fact that they're actually focusing on this tech which I heard they were developing years years ago, at least for the ion propulsion and inflatable structures, shows that NASA is finalyl getting off their feet and working on them.

    1. Re:Seems kind of quick? by FleaPlus · · Score: 3, Informative

      They couldn't have really developed all of this since the announcement of the cancellation of the Constellation program.

      Seems more likely they just grabbed a bunch of already developed tech and slammed it together.

      On the plus side, the fact that they're actually focusing on this tech which I heard they were developing years years ago, at least for the ion propulsion and inflatable structures, shows that NASA is finalyl getting off their feet and working on them.

      Keep in mind all of these technologies have been on NASA's back-burner for a while (and most/all had their funding cut when Ares/Constellation started going over-budget). These "Flagship Technology Demonstrators" are also specifically targeted towards technologies which are already of mid-level maturity but have never been brought to the point that they could be tested in space before. There's a figure on page 2 of this document which does a pretty good job of explaining things:

      http://nspires.nasaprs.com/external/viewrepositorydocument/cmdocumentid=230964/Section1.pdf

    2. Re:Seems kind of quick? by shadowbearer · · Score: 1

        I imagine they are relying on the private companies who have been developing this technology - such as Bigelow with inflatable habitats, and the numerous work on solar electric propulsion, etc. After all, it has already been stated that NASA will be relying on private companies a lot more.

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
  3. Re:Still flying Russian for the next two decades. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I don't see what the problem is here.

    So they shuttle us up and then we blast off to Mars while they're still stuck in LEO or at best Lunar landings.

    "Thanks for the boost, losers. Now we're going to the big boy playground."

    "If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants."

    Or to put it in a more spacey context.

    "If I have been able to go further than others, it is because I kicked off other people's shoulders because those idiots kept trying to make themselves taller while I focused on learning to fly."

    Hell, if they're willing to spend their money on getting into orbit, why should we make one too? We're at peace. We're friendly. We'll use their crap while we focus on other stuff.

    Making the same thing in 5 different countries just slows down progress. It may result in cool innovations, but I'd rather have one group working on part A and the other working on part B instead of both needing to finish A before working on B.

  4. Re:Misleading by FleaPlus · · Score: 2, Informative

    Did anyone else read "flagship technology" and picture a ship with solar sails? Well, if you did, you'll be disappointed.

    You mean like the one that Japan launched yesterday?

    http://www.planetary.org/blog/article/00002503/
    http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=12588

  5. New info on commercial crew and robot precursors by FleaPlus · · Score: 2, Informative

    Right after I made the submission, it looks like NASA released info on Commercial Crew Transportation and the Exploration Precursor Robotic Missions. I probably won't make a separate submission (although someone else is more than welcome to), but the new docs are pretty interesting:

    http://nspires.nasaprs.com/external/solicitations/solicitations.do?method=init&stack=push

  6. X Projects by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Only 14 posts? What's the matter with you guys? NASA is doing X Projects again and this is a Good Thing.

    One of the projects is for on-orbit storage and transfer of cryogenic propellants. I wonder if "cryogenic" has the traditional NASA meaning of "liquid hydrogen" or if it refers to easier-to-handle substances like LOX or liquid methane.

    Oh, and where's the love for VASIMR and aerospike engines?

    1. Re:X Projects by FleaPlus · · Score: 1

      Oh, and where's the love for VASIMR and aerospike engines?

      I believe aerospike engines (and things like Thrust Augmented Nozzles) fall under the new Foundational Propulsion Research program:

      http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=34019

      VASIMR falls under the high-power electric propulsion system project in the Enabling Technology Development and Demonstration (ETDD) program announced last week. I believe the plan is to test and mature VASIMR under that program until its ready to be fully tested on a Flagship Technology Demonstration mission:

      http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=34056

    2. Re:X Projects by Anarki2004 · · Score: 1

      I was just about to make a similar post. We're at 19 posts so far. This is space exploration! If this isn't news for nerds, what is?

      p.s. Yes, I am kind of new here, but come on people! As I understand it, this sort of article used to actually generate discussion and got people excited.

      --
      The teachers will crack any minute, purple monkey dishwasher.
    3. Re:X Projects by sznupi · · Score: 1

      It seems this news piece showed up during Friday evening / night. We might at least pretend that we have better things to do then...

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
  7. Re:Still flying Russian for the next two decades. by MrKaos · · Score: 1

    Something tells me that most American spaceflights will still be done using Russian technology, taking off from Kazakhstan, and operated by Russian ground and flight crews, for at least the next two decades.

    Who'd of thought that they were watching the future of American space flight when they first launched sputnik.

    I'm sorry it just seems that it's the same 'gonna do this gonna do that' and it never happens.

    --
    My ism, it's full of beliefs.
  8. Re:Still flying Russian for the next two decades. by sznupi · · Score: 1

    Well, they are the ones with few decades of experience with operating a manned spacecraft which is essentially capable of beyond-LEO operation (and has done so few times). Plus also assembly via autonomous docking and in-orbit refueling.

    --
    One that hath name thou can not otter
  9. Re:Still flying Russian for the next two decades. by supertrinko · · Score: 1

    Treat them like that and they may not take you up there at all. Don't bite the hand that feeds you.

    --
    If it rhymes it must be true.